Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print
Motivated Rejection of Science (Read 7535 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #75 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 5:45pm
 
Is this the original paper by John Cook that you're talking about?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You were going on about John Cook, and this seems to be the one as far as I can see.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #76 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 5:51pm
 
muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 5:45pm:
Is this the original paper by John Cook that you're talking about?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You were going on about John Cook, and this seems to be the one as far as I can see.


Yes i'm sure that is the one.

Look here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-pape...
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #77 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:13pm
 
Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:36pm:
muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:26pm:
A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing.



This is how the 98% consensus originally came about.....!!!


Well, you confirmed it was the right paper. I'll quote from the abstract:
Quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.



No survey of opinions there, it was a survey of peer reviewed papers. As I said, A survey of opinions is worthless. The paper you cited was just that.

What are you talking about?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Vuk11
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #78 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:30pm
 
The Cook et al survey is a survey of opinion by the reviewers, of those papers, with a minor contribution from the authors.

So if surveys of opinion don't matter, then maybe we can get back on track to how the story is playing out in 2013. As science changes every day.

The IPCC fifth assessment report is coming out, though I disagree with their methods and accuse them of cherry picking, there are many peer reviewed papers (like that matters these days) ,on many components of climate change we can be reading and quoting.

This year seems to show three things in my opinion; there are many drivers of the climate that we do not yet have enough information of (even solar irradiance and volcanic activity is still being reported and debated on), the real world evidence changing different to what we (and the IPCC) had anticipated, and also the fact that climate drivers are not independent and the role they play with each other is just being established now.

In this years report look at the image below of the working groups and their spheres of study/influence/reporting.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #79 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:44pm
 
muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 6:13pm:
Ajax wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:36pm:
muso wrote on Sep 16th, 2013 at 4:26pm:
A survey of opinions is worthless. A survey of papers is a totally different thing.



This is how the 98% consensus originally came about.....!!!


Well, you confirmed it was the right paper. I'll quote from the abstract:
Quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.



No survey of opinions there, it was a survey of peer reviewed papers. As I said, A survey of opinions is worthless. The paper you cited was just that.

What are you talking about?


What ever dude..........?????

...

Quote:
Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.   

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Read more here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-pape...


Back to top
« Last Edit: Sep 16th, 2013 at 8:43pm by Ajax »  

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Motivated Rejection of Science
Reply #80 - Sep 16th, 2013 at 7:29pm
 
The Ajax hypothesis seems to be resting on the hope that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 
Send Topic Print